HT Digital,
Guwahati, Jan 09: Members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) on January 8 began a three-day hunger strike protesting the Assam government’s decision to shift the principal seat of the Gauhati High Court to North Guwahati, stepping up opposition to the proposed judicial township at Rangmahal.
The protest, to be held for six hours each day, started at 10 am outside the old High Court building at Uzan Bazar. The agitation follows a resolution adopted at an emergent extraordinary general meeting of the Bar Association earlier this week and is being led by GHCBA president K N Choudhury.
Related Posts:
The state government plans to construct a new High Court complex as part of a judicial township spread across 129 bighas—over 42.5 acres—at Rangmahal on the northern bank of the Brahmaputra. The Chief Justice of India is scheduled to lay the foundation stone of the project on January 11, a ceremony the Bar Association has decided to boycott.
In a statement, the GHCBA termed the hunger strike a “peaceful and democratic expression” of its opposition to the relocation. It reiterated that its general body, after deliberations, had reaffirmed its long-standing stand against shifting the principal seat from central Guwahati, a position earlier reflected in resolutions and a referendum among its members.
The Bar Association has appealed to advocates to honour the collective decision and abstain from the foundation stone-laying event. The hunger strike is set to continue on January 10 and January 12.
In November last year, the Assam cabinet approved ₹479 crore for the first phase of construction of the judicial township. The government has argued that the move is part of a broader Brahmaputra riverfront development plan, which would require the High Court land at Uzan Bazar.
At present, the Gauhati High Court functions from a historic building and a newer multi-storey complex, connected by an underground tunnel with escalator facilities. The GHCBA has maintained that relocating the court would inconvenience lawyers and litigants and has demanded an immediate halt to the project, citing public and stakeholder interests.
